New Line kick Jackson off of the Hobbit

[eldaec]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2462766,00.html

New Line Cinema have told Peter Jackson to sling his hook unless his company drops a lawsuit disputing some portion of the profits from LotR.

[Ironwood]

Um, a Hobbit Film AND a Prequel ?

Dime Bar ?

[eldaec]

At the same time as making the Hobbit, Jackson wanted to make another film based on Hobbit/LotR footnotes - following the white council plotline in more detail. I think it was intended as more as another prequel to LotR than as a prequel to the Hobbit - the idea being jackson gets to do something in middle earth where he is less bound by canon.

New line replied, "Hell ye$!". I'm paraphrasing.

[Ironwood]

Yeah, so I understand.  It's still a bad idea.  (Except outside the confines of my own head, of course.)

[Roac]

Shame.  If New Line wanted to use another movie(s) to settle the lawsuit, it would've been nice if Jackson took the bait.  There's no way New Line can have a director/producer working on a project of theirs while in the middle of a lawsuit - that's a huge conflict of interest. 

[Viin]

I bet it was Tom Cruise's doing. That jerk.

Edit: and even though I just found out it's actually United Artists he's running, I'm still leaving that line as is.

[HaemishM]

They better get someone really good to do it if they even bother.

[Litigator]

They better get someone really good to do it if they even bother.

It's your moment to shine, Herr Boll.

[eldaec]

This is the letter Jackson sent to theonering.net....

Dear One Ringers,

As you know, there's been a lot of speculation about The Hobbit. We are often asked about when or if this film will ever be made. We have always responded that we would be very interested in making the film - if it were offered to us to make.

You may also be aware that Wingnut Films has bought a lawsuit against New Line, which resulted from an audit we undertook on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring. Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.

However, we have always said that we do not want to discuss The Hobbit with New Line until the lawsuit over New Line's accounting practices is resolved. This is simple common sense - you cannot be in a relationship with a film studio, making a complex, expensive movie and dealing with all the pressures and responsibilities that come with the job, while an unresolved lawsuit exists.

We have also said that we do not want to tie settlement of the lawsuit to making a film of The Hobbit. In other words, we would have to agree to make The Hobbit as a condition of New Line settling our lawsuit. In our minds this is not the right reason to make a film and if a film of The Hobbit went ahead on this basis, it would be doomed. Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience. When you agree to make a film, you're taking on a massive commitment and you need to be driven by an absolute passion to want to get the story on screen. It's that passion, and passion alone, that gives the movie its imagination and heart. To us it is not a cold-blooded business decision.

A couple of months ago there was a flurry of Hobbit news in the media. MGM, who own a portion of the film rights in The Hobbit, publicly stated they wanted to make the film with us. It was a little weird at the time because nobody from New Line had ever spoken to us about making a film of The Hobbit and the media had some fun with that. Within a week or two of those stories, our Manager Ken Kamins got a call from the co-president of New Line Cinema, Michael Lynne, who in essence told Ken that the way to settle the lawsuit was to get a commitment from us to make the Hobbit, because "that's how these things are done". Michael Lynne said we would stand to make much more money if we tied the lawsuit and the movie deal together and this may well be true, but it's still the worst reason in the world to agree to make a film.

Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second "LOTR prequel", covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we've always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies. We assumed that our lawsuit with the studio would come to a natural conclusion and we would then be free to discuss our ideas with the studio, get excited and jump on board. We've assumed that we would possibly get started on development and design next year, whilst filming The Lovely Bones. We even had a meeting planned with MGM executives to talk through our schedule.

However last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on the Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects.

Ordesky said that New Line has a limited time option on the film rights they have obtained from Saul Zaentz (this has never been conveyed to us before), and because we won't discuss making the movies until the lawsuit is resolved, the studio is going to have to hire another director.

Given that New Line are committed to this course of action, we felt at the very least, we owed you, the fans, a straightforward account of events as they have unfolded for us.

We have always had the greatest support from The Ringers and we are very sorry our involvement with The Hobbit has been ended in this way. Our journey into Tolkien's world started with a phone call from Ken Kamins to Harvey Weinstein in Nov 1995 and ended with a phone call from Mark Ordesky to Ken in Nov 2006. It has been a great 11 years.

This outcome is not what we anticipated or wanted, but neither do we see any positive value in bitterness and rancor. We now have no choice but to let the idea of a film of The Hobbit go and move forward with other projects.

We send our very best wishes to whomever has the privilege of making The Hobbit and look forward to seeing the film on the big screen.

Warmest regards to you all, and thanks for your incredible support over the years.

We got to go there - but not back again ...

[Righ]

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1987929,00.html

Essentially NewLine are saying "Peter Jackson already made $250 million from those films, that's more than enough for one man, he can't see how much loot our accountants are hiding".

[Nebu]

How will they EVAR top this one?

[Ironwood]

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1987929,00.html

Essentially NewLine are saying "Peter Jackson already made $250 million from those films, that's more than enough for one man, he can't see how much loot our accountants are hiding".

That is the most petulant and childish news quote I have ever seen.  What a fucking retard.

[sissygirlman]

Bob Shaye, the man in the article is obviously upset over the matter, he built the company up after being born to a damn grocier, but the whole thing seems more like a divorce where both sides aren't talking but their lawyers are. 

New line was popular before with movies like 'Blade' and Nightmare on 'Elm street', Lord of the Rings was their first Epic hit, it put them in the league with Universal and MGM, so Jackson and New Line really made each other very successful.
 I think what is boils down to is: New line is handling money like a major studio now, and Jackson feels like he should get money for raising New line studio to the next level of film-making.

neither is going to agree most likely, so who is going to be the next directer?

*Side-note: Peter Jackson made a puppet film before Lord of the Rings, I didn't wanna post anything in the main article about it because I really don't know much about it.

*Edit - also I correct myself: Jackson noted in his letter that New Line exec Mark Ordesky, who shepherded the "Rings" trilogy, explained that New Line is ditching Jackson because it has a "limited time option" on the film rights obtained from Saul Zaentz.

-this contract ends sometime in '07 or '08, and means MGM regains full rights to Rings at that time.

http://www.answers.com/topic/the-hobbit-2009-film
http://movies.go.com/variety/feature?featureid=861521

[Righ]

neither is going to agree most likely, so who is going to be the next directer?

Since they have around 12 months to complete it before New Line loses the rights, I would suspect Uwe Boll.

[sissygirlman]

On top of the other 3 films he is directing? Not too much of a gambit, doing 4 movies at a time seems up his alley.  Not to say he makes crappy movies because he might sue me.

[Rasix]

I can see it now.  Matthew Lillard as Gandalf. 

[Velorath]

I think what is boils down to is: New line is handling money like a major studio now, and Jackson feels like he should get money for raising New line studio to the next level of film-making.

I don't really think that's it at all.  Jackson is just trying to get them to open the books, which he says according to his contract he has the right to do.  If anyone got underpaid, not just Jackson, New Line would have to pay them what they're owed.  It didn't have to come down to a lawsuit, but obviously New Line feels like they have some shit that needs to stay hidden in those books.

[sissygirlman]

I can agree on that too, especially since New Line has been in Legal trouble before.

I think with Blade, but I can't be sure.

[HaemishM]

New Line, like all the now major studios, doesn't want to let anyone know how much profit they are making from the movies, because then the people responsible might want a bigger cut. They are being cunts. The studios use accounting tricks to dick talent out of money they are entitled to.

[Abagadro]

New Line, like all the now major studios, doesn't want to let anyone know how much profit they are making from the movies, because then the people responsible might want a bigger cut. They are being cunts. The studios use accounting tricks to dick talent out of money they are entitled to.

My favorite instance of this was when Art Buckwald sued over not getting paid for his treatment for Coming to America. Paramount claimed that the movie, despite having over 350M in revenue (and this was in the late 80s mind you), had no net profit.


EDIT: to fix butchering of English language

[Mazakiel]

I recall reading that a similar situation occured with Forrest Gump, so that they didn't have to pay the author much of hundreds of millions that the movie made.  So, he's refused to sell the rights for the sequel to them, saying that he couldn't in good conscience have a movie made that was a sequel to one that wasn't a success. 

[Trippy]

It's just a giant shell game to these movie studios. They are "charging" themselves for a ton of the productions costs which of course ends up being income in the other column so they cancel themselves out but it allows them to screw over all the people whose revenue sharing is based on net rather than gross.

[bhodi]

I am *sure* we've had this discussion before. With the same people, saying the same stuff.

[Azazel]

I think what is boils down to is: New line is handling money like a major studio now, and Jackson feels like he should get money for raising New line studio to the next level of film-making.

Doesn't sound like it to me...

Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.

[tazelbain]

Good for Jackson.  If the situation was reversed, they'd rack him over the coals.

[sissygirlman]

I think what is boils down to is: New line is handling money like a major studio now, and Jackson feels like he should get money for raising New line studio to the next level of film-making.

Doesn't sound like it to me...

Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.

But Essentially New Line is singing the same tune,

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1987929,00.html

They say that Jackson is the greedy one.

I don't really care either way though, but if production were to lapse past the deadline MGM put on the rights then MGM might just grab Jackson again for the film anyways.  I think alot of the problems involved might be because of the time issue.  New Line really wants to prove that they are in the drivers seat of the Lord of the rings.

Why would a director care about accounting practices, he wants money, and New Line screwed him out of it, I think we can all agree on that.

[lamaros]

I think what is boils down to is: New line is handling money like a major studio now, and Jackson feels like he should get money for raising New line studio to the next level of film-making.

Doesn't sound like it to me...

Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.

But Essentially New Line is singing the same tune,

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1987929,00.html

They say that Jackson is the greedy one.

I don't really care either way though, but if production were to lapse past the deadline MGM put on the rights then MGM might just grab Jackson again for the film anyways.  I think alot of the problems involved might be because of the time issue.  New Line really wants to prove that they are in the drivers seat of the Lord of the rings.

Why would a director care about accounting practices, he wants money, and New Line screwed him out of it, I think we can all agree on that.

If by singing the same line you mean saying "Jezus we threw a heap of money at him but he won't let it go, surely that's enough to call him a greedy bastard and ignore any wider implications about our dodgy accounting. Fuck him and his morals."

NL: Here have some money PJ.
PJ: Thanks, but something seems to be off in the accounting still, I'd like it checked.
NL: How about we just let you make the Hobbit film you want to make and you shut up?
PJ: Ahh, how about I do that film for you (and keep you abord the PJ, director of LotR, $$$ train) after we sort these accounting issues out.
NL: Fuck you. We tell you what to do. If we want you to shut up and direct our fucking money hat you'll do it and do it silently, or you're never working with us again!!!
PJ: Ok. Sorry that's the case. Have fun with your Hobbit rights, I'm outta here.
PJ: Oh, and we still need to work out that accounting problem. Bye!

[Lt.Dan]

*Side-note: Peter Jackson made a puppet film before Lord of the Rings, I didn't wanna post anything in the main article about it because I really don't know much about it.

Actually I think Jackson's prior movie was Heavenly Creature, the quaint story of a pair of NZ school girls who conspire to kill (or accidentally kill) one of their mother's who happens to want to stop their love for each other.

Prior to that was the puppet movie Meet the Feebles (not so good IMO), Brain Dead (a splatter movie to end all splatter movies) and Bad Taste (the low-budget splatter movie to end all low-budget splatter movies).

To steal the tag-line off a New Zealand soft drink - "Peter Jackson, world famous in NZ"

[Ironwood]

I recall reading that a similar situation occured with Forrest Gump, so that they didn't have to pay the author much of hundreds of millions that the movie made.  So, he's refused to sell the rights for the sequel to them, saying that he couldn't in good conscience have a movie made that was a sequel to one that wasn't a success. 

Damn, I like the way that guy thinks.

[Rasix]

*Side-note: Peter Jackson made a puppet film before Lord of the Rings, I didn't wanna post anything in the main article about it because I really don't know much about it.

Actually I think Jackson's prior movie was Heavenly Creature, the quaint story of a pair of NZ school girls who conspire to kill (or accidentally kill) one of their mother's who happens to want to stop their love for each other.

Prior to that was the puppet movie Meet the Feebles (not so good IMO), Brain Dead (a splatter movie to end all splatter movies) and Bad Taste (the low-budget splatter movie to end all low-budget splatter movies).

To steal the tag-line off a New Zealand soft drink - "Peter Jackson, world famous in NZ"

He also did The Fighteners (his movie directly before LOTR), which  I enjoyed.  Jake Busey is frightening on his own..

[Abagadro]

I recall reading that a similar situation occured with Forrest Gump, so that they didn't have to pay the author much of hundreds of millions that the movie made.  So, he's refused to sell the rights for the sequel to them, saying that he couldn't in good conscience have a movie made that was a sequel to one that wasn't a success. 

Damn, I like the way that guy thinks.

He also takes a crack at Paramount in the first chapter of the sequel.

[HaemishM]

I think what is boils down to is: New line is handling money like a major studio now, and Jackson feels like he should get money for raising New line studio to the next level of film-making.

Doesn't sound like it to me...

Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.

But Essentially New Line is singing the same tune,

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1987929,00.html

They say that Jackson is the greedy one.

And if they had a goddamn leg to stand on, they'd open up the books and show him how wrong he was. The fact they won't open the books on the latter two films despite having done it on the first one shows they have something to hide.

[Llava]

I am *sure* we've had this discussion before. With the same people, saying the same stuff.

Good, I thought I was going crazy.

I knew I remembered the Coming To America anecdote from before, there's no way it was posted today.

[Morat20]

*Side-note: Peter Jackson made a puppet film before Lord of the Rings, I didn't wanna post anything in the main article about it because I really don't know much about it.

Actually I think Jackson's prior movie was Heavenly Creature, the quaint story of a pair of NZ school girls who conspire to kill (or accidentally kill) one of their mother's who happens to want to stop their love for each other.

Prior to that was the puppet movie Meet the Feebles (not so good IMO), Brain Dead (a splatter movie to end all splatter movies) and Bad Taste (the low-budget splatter movie to end all low-budget splatter movies).

To steal the tag-line off a New Zealand soft drink - "Peter Jackson, world famous in NZ"

Was Brain Dead the one with the line "I kick ass for the lord!"?

[Velorath]

Was Brain Dead the one with the line "I kick ass for the lord!"?

Yep, although when I saw it, it was called Dead Alive.  I actually saw Bad Taste and Dead Alive on VHS back around the time each of them came out here.  It wasn't until I looked up Peter Jackson's credits on IMDB after seeing the first two LotR movies that I found out they were all done by the same guy, which was shocking to say the least.